Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Need Professional Advice on Lenses for my Red Epic

Phil Holland said:
Heh. I was in a similar situation and Ultra Primes were actually on the table for me. I ended up going with the Schneider Cine-Xenar III Primes. Almost went with Cooke S4s Primes. Almost waited on the Leica Summicron-C Primes to be released. There are a lot of glass options these days.

That big question, in terms of glass that will last you for life, is the tricky one to answer. Coverage is a concern for me, but I do have a more than full set of glass that covers 6KFF and VistaVision as well as a few larger formats.

Value and performance at the moment the Xenon FF Primes are hard to beat. CP.2s are what they are, love em or hate them. If you need the speed and need a full set and don't mind not so idea mechanics the Illumina T1.3 primes are very much worth looking at. Canon CN-E Primes are another option and especially now that Duclos Lenses is offering a PL Mount conversion.

If you are in the market for a zoom however I'd really take a close look at the Zeiss Compact Zooms. They did very right there.

My only two wiggles with my set of Cine-Xenar III Primes is that they are 1. not super speeds and 2. designed/optimized for S35 though they do all cover 6K WS and 6K HD.
Click to expand...

Hi Phil! How would you compare Xenons vs Cine-Xenar III optically (character, resolution, aberations, etc)??? Mechanically? Big difference in quality between the two? Thank you!
 
Dennis Guskov said:
Hi Phil! How would you compare Xenons vs Cine-Xenar III optically (character, resolution, aberations, etc)??? Mechanically? Big difference in quality between the two? Thank you!
Click to expand...

Heh. I have many thoughts Dennis.

The first big deal in these times is image plane coverage. The Cine-Xenars were designed for S35 and can be used with Mysterium-X 5K and a few Dragon 6K formats. The Xenons are designed for 135 Film/FF35/VistaVision sized sensors. So "optimal" optical performance is different for them.

My set of Cine-Xenars is optically superior in terms of sharpness, however particularly on the wides when focused closer at the edge of larger formats they fall off a bit.

Mechanically I think the Cine-Xenars are better due to where the hard stops land on the lens. The Xenons are more compact however.

Character to me they are both different feels. The Cine-Xenars are telecentric at 50, 75, and 95mm. The other primes have been optimized in a similar sudo-telecentric fashion. They don't breathe while focusing. I like this for my style of shooting. Color is similar but different. Both sets draw differently, so they do have unique aspects to both of them. Overall the Cine-Xenars are more "Leica" than they are "Zeiss" and that's an interesting thing in terms of the overall look. The Xenons to me are interesting as they provide a visual difference over their nearest priced competitors that's extremely noticeable.

Aberrations. Both can exhibit CA and various other artifacts. The Xenars are a bit more "wrangled". However, you can shoot both clean if you know what you are doing. Just like all lenses really.

Close focus is fantastic on the Cine-Xenars and that's really important to me.

I will say that the Cine-Xenars might have my favorite out of focus bokeh out of literally all cinema primes. The only thing I could ask for is if they were T1.3-1.5 and covered FF35 in reality.
 
I don't own the Xenar III's, but I just can't get used to their breathing compensation. It feels so artificial to the point of it almost mimicking a post effect. But yeah, they make really pretty images otherwise. Their out of focus highlight bokeh is beautiful and general out of focus look is very creamy.
 
So Phil, if you were shopping for a set of lenses today, would you still choose Xenars or would you go for Xenons? Or other?
Would you place the Xenon look closer to the Zeiss then, than Cooke, next to Xenars?

Phil and Jeff, what's breathing compensation like on Xenons next to Xenars? Is it more pronounced? Cuz, if I remember correctly, they are advertised as "virtually zero breathing" or something of the sort.

Thank you guys for all the input!
 
Recently (Sept 2014) purchased the 6 lens Canon CNE. For the price they are good value. I am now looking for something slightly better... considering the Xenars, Summicrons and the mighty Alura 18-80... any thoughts.

I recently did a test with the Alura v a master prime... and honestly I liked both. My prime considerations would be

1. Something that can cover full frame
2. 6 lens set minimum
3. Sharpness
4. A clean look (I can always filter up)


Thanks everyone for the advice.
 
If you are looking for full frame coverage, you have eliminated all the lenses on your list. There aren't many motion picture lens sets that are designed to cover that large of a sensor. CP2s, Xenons and Rokinons come to mind first as well as the Compact Zooms. The Canon CNEs you already own are probably as good as or better than some of those.
 
Dennis Guskov said:
So Phil, if you were shopping for a set of lenses today, would you still choose Xenars or would you go for Xenons? Or other?
Would you place the Xenon look closer to the Zeiss then, than Cooke, next to Xenars?

Phil and Jeff, what's breathing compensation like on Xenons next to Xenars? Is it more pronounced? Cuz, if I remember correctly, they are advertised as "virtually zero breathing" or something of the sort.

Thank you guys for all the input!
Click to expand...

Heh. Let me reply to you 6 months later! Sorry I must have missed this post.

I use a lot of glass. So there's no "easy answer" for me. My last few months of shooting has included my Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes, Leica Summilux-C, Zeiss Master Primes, Ultra Primes, CP.2s, Compact Zooms, Duclos Cine-Modded ZF.2s, Canon EF glass, old Olympus glass.

My Cine-Xenars have been a sound investment and have been my main set for production use. My big gap I feel is the lack of owning a zoom, so I've been shooting with the Zeiss Compact Zooms a lot as of late. The 28-80mm T2.9 is a gem and is an incredibly useful range that covers Dragon 6K FF with no problems. I also want a super speed set of glass, but nobody really makes a "consistent aperture" set that covers Dragon 6K FF or beyond. That frustrates me to no end actually.

In that regard, in terms of coverage and speed, the Zeiss Compact Zooms and Canon CN-E are the only choices right now for T1.3-1.5 glass.

About the Xenars versus Xenon breathing. I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the Schneider Cine-Xenar III primes are currently the only cinema primes on the market that employ a pure telecentric design and allows for them industry leading "no breathing". The pure telecentric designs are on the 50, 75, and 95mm and the longer lengths like that is where it would be more apparent. The 18, 25, 35mm are sudo telecentric and don't breath either. This is one of the major reasons I purchased this set of glass as they aren't exactly like anything else out there and have a unique rendering with pretty out of focus to boot. The Xenon primes breathe and have similar characteristics when focusing of other spherical designs. No biggy. It's just what they do.

As for look. The Xenons are closer to Cooke than say Ultra Primes.

The way I've been describing Xenon primes is a slightly modern look with a classic feel. And in use I feel they are exactly that. They don't have the cut of Master Primes in terms of pure resolving power, but they do have a classic standard speed appeal to them, which many like. With the bonus of being able to cover 6K FF on Dragon and beyond. Much like the lower tier cinema glass they exhibit pronounced chromatic aberration under extreme contrast situations, be aware of that and tend to it accordingly. Beyond that the recent 25mm and 100mm are pretty damn nice. The last 18mm prototype I used was also pretty great. And remember for 75mm fans, which I am certainly one of, Zeiss and Canon don't make that length in their sets. So that truly separates them.

Schneider did exactly what I told them to do when it comes to the focal lengths. 18, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100mm. That's a nice and proper 6 lens set for motion picture production. The 18mm T2.4 was nearly a 20mm lens, but Schneider made the right call by "doing the hard thing" and hitting 18mm. After the 18mm release I would hope they move forward with a 135mm and a 180/200mm as well as adding a 14/15mm into the mix down the line. That would end up being a 9 lens set that can cover nearly every type of shooting situation outside of super-telephoto range. In that case just grab the Red Pro Prime 300mm T2.9. It covers 6K FF on Dragon and beyond.
 
Hi Phil

correct my assumptions they may be wrong

1. The Xenars cover the full frame except on some of the wider lenses
2. They are sharp and neutral (are they sharper than the Ultra primes)
3. They have less C.A than the xenons
4. They are (in some cases) almost macro lenses

We may be pulling the trigger on these soon. It seems they are the best mid-range lenses - in between the CNE's and the higher ups. I intend to test them myself but compared to the Summicrons would you say they offer incredible value?

With regards to the Zeiss CZs they do not look sharp to me compared to the Alluras... have not seen both up close ...only the Alluras. What is your opinion on the Zeiss 28-80 v the Allura 18-80.



Thanks for you feedback Phil. It will really help me make the right decision.
 
Has anyone shot with Nikon's? That's all I have is a mix set of zooms & prime Nikon F lenses. Can't afford cine lenses yet but I have plans to do my first shoot with my Epic x this year.
 
NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
Hi Phil

correct my assumptions they may be wrong

1. The Xenars cover the full frame except on some of the wider lenses
2. They are sharp and neutral (are they sharper than the Ultra primes)
3. They have less C.A than the xenons
4. They are (in some cases) almost macro lenses

We may be pulling the trigger on these soon. It seems they are the best mid-range lenses - in between the CNE's and the higher ups. I intend to test them myself but compared to the Summicrons would you say they offer incredible value?

With regards to the Zeiss CZs they do not look sharp to me compared to the Alluras... have not seen both up close ...only the Alluras. What is your opinion on the Zeiss 28-80 v the Allura 18-80.

Thanks for you feedback Phil. It will really help me make the right decision.
Click to expand...

1. The Cine-Xenar III primes cover Dragon 6K FF with the 35, 50, 75, 95mm. The 18 and 25 can be used for 6K HD/WS with vignette, but I honestly shoot 5.5K a lot when using these lenses.
2. They are neutral and moderately sharp. They aren't sharper than Ultra Primes or even Red Pro Primes, though they float in a similar "wheelhouse".
3. They do have less CA than the Xenons side by side in similar dynamic range "explosions".
4. Yes, one of the main reasons I purchased this set of lenses was for their close focus performance.


I have seen the Alura zooms up close and use them occasionally. The Zeiss 28-80 T2.9 is very sharp for a zoom and it covers 6K FF. The 18-80mm T2.6 covers Dragon 6K FF around 40mm btw and edge performance isn't "ideal" if shooting that format. The extra bang on the Alura is the T2.6 versus T2.9 and the fact that it goes to 18mm for S35 coverage. Zeiss added the 15-30mm T2.9 to deal with ultra-wide on larger formats. Interestingly if we are talking about APS-C and FF35 formats 28.8mm is about as wide on FF35 FOV compared to 18mm on APS-C.
 
Thanks Phil - Your expert opinion is much appreciated. I know you are trying to give a balanced view but if you had to chose between the Zeiss 28-80 and the Allura 18-80 which one would you choose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top